OK, so I had won my game as Ghandi via space victory and decided to mess around. I built a bunch of ICBMs and shot 'em into the Chinese. He was at the bottom of the heap. Understandably, he became furious with me, would not even talk. However the ICBM really sucks! So I shot another salvo - and now had nuked every city twice. Still he wouldn't accept my rather harsh terms. A third salvo followed - still no go! But after three strikes the cities were still viable. This is nonsense!
Meanwhile every other AI except the Germans - opportunistic bastards - who had invaded the now-radioactive landscape and snapped-up two cities - became furious with me.

So I don't see these as very effective.

I've only gone for nukes once or twice - and even then I'd only used them as a way to end a war with a civ that is halfway across the globe.

montezuma was furious with me (as always) but he was halfway across a standard/continents map and he would declare war on me every so often - and so the last time he did, I nuked his capital and two other cities and then he let me declare peace and for the remaining 60 or so turns till the end of the game he didn't declare war on me again...

Seems to me they have about the same effect as they had in real life when used.

I'm really disappointed concerning the nukes - I tried em a couple of times, but they did almost no damage (killed 1-3 in 10+ cities). In relation to the high cost of an ICBM (500), the SDI (750 if I'm not mislead) is without cost. Remember that the SDI was first publicly introduced in 1983 an would have cost a couple trillion dollars... and isn't finished yet due to the fact that it sucks.

Gimme some powerful nukes and let me replay the Cold War!

Do nukes even destroy units anymore? Looks to me like they just get heavily damaged. Which sucks b/c you have to sweep in that turn to take the cities....

I did successfully use nukes to reduce Egypt's population in its inland, hard-to-reach cities, increasing my % of the world population enough to win the UN vote in a recent game.

I understand the idea behind making SDI cheap, to keep play balance (esp. in multiplayer games) but I'd like the nukes to actually be useful for tactical military situations, too. My kingdom for a SMAC planet-buster!

[...] I understand the idea behind making SDI cheap, to keep play balance (esp. in multiplayer games) but I'd like the nukes to actually be useful for tactical military situations, too. My kingdom for a SMAC planet-buster!

Well, you've got the UN to restrict nukes - as soon as the SDI is built it's not even worth to consider the use of nukes: They're pretty weak and with the probability of 25% of hitting the target... you do t he math. :(

There got to be a big strategic advantage if you get the nukes first - otherwise you don't have to integrate them in the game.

Well, nukes are now infinite range which I like, but the ICBM is no longer the city-killer it's supposed to represent. It's better as a battlefield-clearing tac-nuke, which is how I use it. Bombers knock the defense to +0%, 1 nuke does enough damage my armor stationed just outside the radius finishes the job. If you nuke a city 2-3 times, you'll usually eliminate all the defenders though. ICBMs are priced appropriately for this limited utility IMO, but they really don't represent the city-killers which we should be seeing, and SDI is way undercosted.

Dunno. I couldn't clear out Thebes despite three nuke strikes in a row in my game. Then again, they did have a LOT of units in that town.

Well, you've got the UN to restrict nukes - as soon as the SDI is built it's not even worth to consider the use of nukes: They're pretty weak and with the probability of 25% of hitting the target... you do t he math. :(

There got to be a big strategic advantage if you get the nukes first - otherwise you don't have to integrate them in the game.


I had to fight for the nukes, too! The UN originally banned them in my game before Manhattan was even built....I had to conquer enough land to vote to remove the restrictions myself. (Er, me and my coalition allies, that is, including the Commonwealth of India, the Aztec Territory the Protectorate of Japan, and the Free Coastal Cities of Egypt....)

The best use that I found is against naval stacks. But even then I was surprised to find that the SDI also protects targets outside the territory of the builder. SDI is maybe a little over-powerful. Still if it wasn't nukes would be the ideal option for all warmongering amoral civs (no offence Americans:mischief:).

It is difficult to include them without making their use too tempting.

The best use that I found is against naval stacks. But even then I was surprised to find that the SDI also protects targets outside the territory of the builder. SDI is maybe a little over-powerful. Still if it wasn't nukes would be the ideal option for all warmongering amoral civs (no offence Americans:mischief:).

It is difficult to include them without making their use too tempting.

That's okay. Just try not to trip over Trident on your way to the moral superiority club. :)

Nukes came in hand once for me. I was trying to win a diplomatic victory but was a few votes short so I nuked a few big cities belonging to the other candidate in the diplomatic victory vote to knock down his population (so he got less votes in the election). It worked. Seemed like at least two nukes per city was required to affect them significantly.

I wonder why the decreased the power of nukes. They used to be able to destroy every unit in a city and then you could zip a tank in there and take it over.

Hmm.. maybet that's why. Dunno, really.

Also, when I used a few nukes, global warming started destroying 1-3 tiles of grassland into desert per turn. :(

...and SDI is way undercosted.

Yes, it should cost ten times more and do nothing. Firaxis reversed those roles it seems. Clearly the designer doesn't feel nukes should be thre generation defining object that they were. Revisionist historist!


Its amusing that Civ is historically reasonable for all ages except the current. Nukes are ineffective, interplanetary travel is possible and technology solves all problems.

The best use that I found is against naval stacks. But even then I was surprised to find that the SDI also protects targets outside the territory of the builder. SDI is maybe a little over-powerful. Still if it wasn't nukes would be the ideal option for all warmongering amoral civs (no offence Americans:mischief:).

It is difficult to include them without making their use too tempting.

The problem is they should have 2 levels of nuke
1. early nuclear bombers, can be intercepted by fighters, and are similar to current ICBMs (except they have a range and do slightly less damage to outer tile improvements) available at same tech as manhattan project

2. ICBMs should destroy All buildings and improvements (except World Wonders and possibly roads) and 75% of pop (Bomb Shelters should only protect population not buildings)... perhaps a bit higher level of unit damage.

I agree with not Killing units with the nuke (at least not automatically)


Then make SDI a much later much more expensive improvement (probably with levels)

The fact is nukes should be balanced the way they are in real life, with more nukes. By limiting early nukes and expanding later nukes, if manhattan project is expensive enough then it will be very hard to be the first one to get nukes (once you have built it, a few other civs should have the technology) and so you can all start building nukes at the same time. The Manhattan project might be built by the builder type then, to cut down the warrior.

This would allow the major powers of each bloc to engage in a nuclear arms race, without actually using them.

Its amusing that Civ is historically reasonable for all ages except the current. Nukes are ineffective, interplanetary travel is possible and technology solves all problems.

Free Speech costs nothing to protect, State Property requires no administration cost, and the UN can actually enforce its resolutions.

I can't tell you how tempted I was to write a "Neocon mod" as soon as I started browsing through the different civics.

Free Speech isn't Free! (Semanticists: Guaranteeing unrestricted speech is not without cost.)

I don't see how there would be enough bunkers to cover double digit cities. I thought bunkers would protect tens of thousands at the most unless the overland ones use up less space.

Seems to me they have about the same effect as they had in real life when used.

Drop an ICBM on New York and see how long it remains even remotely viable as a city.:dubious:

Its amusing that Civ is historically reasonable for all ages except the current. Nukes are ineffective, interplanetary travel is possible and technology solves all problems.


Actually interPlanetary travel isn't possible in civ interStellar travel is (definitely in the unrealistic range) In terms of realism instead of Alpha Centauri, a interplanetary Mars Colony would much more be in the range of 'realism' (definitely a more realistic project then launching a starship)

The solution is quite simple: bring back the SMAC system of nukes! Missiles scale up, and you can build local and global defenses. There would be three components:

1) Nuclear weapons of increasing power. Tactical nukes, nuclear ICBM's, and fusion (thermonuclear) ICBM's. Each weapon deals more damage, but has a higher cost.

2) Nation-level interceptor missile defense. These would be built like SMAC's missile defense pods, with an automatic 75%-ish chance to intercept a launch, after which that interceptor missile is used up.

3) City-level missile defense. This would be similar to SMAC's local defense systems, with a good flat chance to intercept strikes anywhere in a several-tile radius around the city, at great expense.


In addition, SMAC's Atrocities would apply well to the new diplomatic system:

1) Tactical nuclear weapons would be the same as now, an Atrocity with that faction and their friends.
2) Nuclear ICBM's would be a Global Atrocity, causing all nations to sever relations and refuse to talk for 10 turns.
3) City-killing thermonuclear ICBM's would be a big Global Atrocity, causing every leader to sever relations, and a -1 diplomatic penalty. If the penalty is low enough, nations with severed relations declare war.

Using nuclear missiles should also increase war weariness, subject to modifiers. You're going to have a hard time keeping your nation happy while wiping out billions of people, unless running under a Police State! :dubious:

Not a bad idea, a possible implementation would be to have a dual future tech path, the old one still gives health and happiness, the new one produces only more powerful weaponry and defenses.